Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-07/Nesting inflected form definition lines

Nesting inflected form definition lines
to new one exemplified by The use of boldface, italics, hyperlinks, and capitalization are not covered by this proposal, and should be therefore unaffected by the result of this vote.
 * Voting on: Volume changing the formatting of inflected form entries from the currently common one exemplified by
 * 1) nominative plural of aqua
 * 2) genitive singular of aqua
 * 3) dative singular of aqua
 * 4) vocative plural of aqua
 * 1) inflections of aqua:
 * 2) genitive singular
 * 3) dative singular
 * 4) nominative plural
 * 5) vocative plural

As part of this proposal, creating the new formatting by means of a single template invocation instead of multiple ones as before, possibly like the following one:

rather than the previous


 * Rationale: See Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2015-07/Nesting inflected form definition lines. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.
 * Vote started: 00:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2015/July
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2015-07/Nesting inflected form definition lines

Support

 * 1)  It looks less messy and doesn't provide redundant hyperlinks. ~Eloquio (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  looks much neater and the current way is an eye-sore. However, I'd prefer a less manual approach. These entries should be generated much the same way as declension tables, reducing the reliance on bots now that we have lua. We should be aiming to have the bulk of the entry generated by a template where the editor only types something like . The template's lua code should be able to compare the name of the page to the inflections of aqua to generate the entry. At least for Latin. If we really need to insert citations in between the entries then we should be aiming to make a subst-able template which generates the wikicode which can be subst'd into the entry. Although personally, I don't see a need for quotations for specific declensions other than the lemma, as who's going to click through to them all to find them? Surely there is another way to specify which part of speech is used in the citation itself if that is necessary or useful information. I also would not be opposed to Saltmarsh's telescopic proposal. Also, there is an issue of this proposal being created by Dan Polansky simply to oppose it. Pengo (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not all form-of entries appear in inflection tables. Very rare or archaic forms are generally omitted. —CodeCat 01:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a big problem. The standard archaic forms, such as those formed like  could be easily added to a lua script, and the non-standard ones given a special template or syntax, or added to a data table of special cases in lua. [Side note: is an orphan—there are no main-space pages linking to it. Shouldn't there be an easier way to find this page from ?] Pengo (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  —CodeCat 01:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Late support. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC) I prefer the relational format to the hierarchical one. The hiearchical format adds one more horizontal line, and thus takes more space. I find the proposed wiki markup outright ugly. This is all mostly of the nature of personal preference, and so will be the supports, I fear. If someone comes up with arguments that go beyond personal preference, I will look at them and reconsider. One argument that is less of a personal preference is that the proposed markup makes it impossibly to place attesting quotations below the individual inflection lines, but some people argued these quotations should be in the lemma. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  We do not have a standard way of presenting subsenses, and I'm not keen on creating one now. DAVilla 10:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to the formatting of subsenses, then we do have a standard of using . --WikiTiki89 14:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  — My main reason for opposing this is that it prevents placing attesting quotations beneath specific inflected forms' definition lines (I personally from time to time place  beneath specific  definition lines, which requires the same functionality as placing whole quotations there). It's valuable to indicate when certain forms are attested; in Latin, this is especially so in the case of vocatives, which occur rather infrequently. For example, take : I would want to know if it were attested in the vocative (be it the singular,, or the plural, ), since that may suggest religious usage (perhaps in the "when you wish upon a star" vein), and would be remarkable; compare , which is, unexpectedly, attested in the vocative singular . My other, lesser reason for opposing this is that it seems simply pointless: firstly, unless the subsenses are collapsed by default, this adds an extra definition line (as already noted by Dan Polansky), which is surely contrary to the intention behind this; secondly, I see little value in going to all this trouble to save what isn't really very much space (for Latin, I think that the maximum number of definitions for inflected forms you'll get for any one word is six — the isomorphic dative and ablative plural forms in all three genders of adjectives of the first–second  and third  declensions); and, thirdly, this is likely to lead to inconsistency of presentation within entries (in cases like those of Latin first–second-declension adjectives, whose nominative and vocative feminine singular forms and nominative, accusative, and vocative neuter plural forms all end in , whereas their ablative feminine singular forms end in  — one would see "" with five subsenses under one headword, but "" under another). I really can't see any good reasons for supporting this proposal. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Quotations should be given at the lemma anyway. --WikiTiki89 14:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, (1) they can be at both, and (2) "[i]t's [still] valuable to indicate when certain forms are attested". — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Attestation is done on the Citations page. Quotations are just citations that were co-opted into being usage examples too, but like Wikitiki says, those go on the lemma. —CodeCat 02:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think I agree with you on that, but regardless, it still needs to be possible for one to "place beneath specific  definition lines, which requires the same functionality as placing whole quotations there". — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Do people otherwise not know to look on Citations pages if they are looking for citations? —CodeCat 03:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the dearth of citations generally on this site, and of citations of Latin terms especially, I doubt that anyone expects to see a Latin citation in any given entry. You could reply that a blue-linked Citations tab is indication enough of citations existing for a given term, but when the term in question shares its spelling with terms in other languages (which very often happens with Latin and other Romance languages), there is nothing to suggest that the citations would be Latin ones — indeed, there is everything to suggest the opposite where a Latin non-lemma shares its spelling with a Romance lemma (e.g., Spanish lemmata and Latin  forms of  and  lemmata, Italian  lemmata and Latin  forms of  lemmata). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Even so, that doesn't make it a necessity to place a template under every definition separately. It would be fine to place it once in the entry, to indicate that citations are available for that language. —CodeCat 22:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I still think that the specific grammatical form should be indicated, but let's put that aside for a moment. Where would the go? Under a   header? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 03:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  — additionally, until separate quotes are needed, why not telescope entries to:
 * Accusative masculine singular form of θερμός.
 * Nominative, accusative and vocative neuter singular form of θερμός.
 * or similar  — Saltmarsh συζήτηση-talk 05:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea! --WikiTiki89 14:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  as this does look much less clean. I also would second Saltmarsh's proposal, although I'm not sure how readable his given line is; it's not necessarily clear that the words should be grouped "(nominative, accusative, and vocative) neuter singular". —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 16:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  -- profesjonalizm • reply 15:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 3)  - SemperBlotto (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  I like the idea (roten, with 11 inflections, is downright hideous at the moment - this would make it look a lot nicer), but I do agree with the Oppose voters that the implementation suggested isn't flexible enough. It would probably make most sense to choose the format on a language-by-language basis (the most sensible format for German is probably not the best for Latin, and already, English is an exception to the rule, since we merge simple past tense and past participle on the same line). Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  I don't like the fact that this vote was created by someone who opposes it. The result is that the wording of the vote is not flexible enough to actually pass. I would have supported a similar proposal if the wording were more flexible. --WikiTiki89 14:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I created the wording of this vote to the best of my knowledge to reflect what was being proposed by user CodeCat, who, rather than creating votes, has the habit of running nonconsensual volume changes in the mainspace. There was enough time for people to correct the vote before the vote started: the vote was created on 24 July 2015 and started on 10 August 2015. People interested in this vote passing did not give the required input to the wording on Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2015-07/Nesting inflected form definition lines so it could not be improved. For instace, on that talk page, I asked whether collapsibility should be part of the vote, and no one responded. Anyone interested in a vote with what they consider to be a better wording can still create another vote. My creating the vote did not prevent anyone from suggesting improvements to the wording or even from creating another vote with wording according to their liking. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Decision

 * Fails 4‒7‒2 (36·36% : 63·64%). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 08:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)